Sweden’s government on Tuesday said it would put forward a bill introducing a requirement for migrants to adhere to an “honest living” or face deportation.
I’ll have to speak in general terms because I cant know every specific scenario.
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve? One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
I understood them, but I’d argue it’s utterly asinine. If you strip citizenship you’ve created a stateless person, which is mostly avoided where possible - but let’s imagine for a second this was the case. What do you do with a stateless person? They don’t have the right to reside anywhere, every country has the right to refuse entry to them. How do you deport someone when no-one will accept them? Just leave them on runways around the world?
How long before they’re put on a return flight? How long before everyone closes borders with your country because you’re leaving 1000s of criminals on runways around the world?
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
So why not take away those rights of citizens, if deportation is so beneficial?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
So why not take away those rights of citizens,
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
if deportation is so beneficial
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way? In fact expulsion is still permissible within the EU. I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way?
It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).
I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?
Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed? To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians.
Because laws and governance focusing on citizenship, ethnicity etc is wildly against the sentiment of equal treatment and value of humans. It’s unlawful as well.
We don’t want an apartheid system.
Oh no, I didn’t assume you meant ethnicity, that was just an example and apartheid as well. It’s a better example than the US ‘equal but separate’. I just answered why Swedes are supposed to pay for non-Swedes.
What I wanted to point out is that those who has residence in the country can’t be treated differently before the law. Citizenship or not, the law applies and all it’s benefits and consequences.
On another note, the prison sentence is carried out and then the convict is deported, meaning we rehabilitated someone and then got rid of them, not benefiting from the rehabilitated person.
Oh no, I didn’t assume you meant ethnicity, that was just an example and apartheid as well. It’s a better example than the US ‘equal but separate’. I just answered why Swedes are supposed to pay for non-Swedes.
I’m not quite sure how to connect apartheid to the deportation of non citizens? Apartheid is different treatment based on ethnicity, not citizenship. At least per the definition on wikipedia “a system of institutionalised racial segregation”.
What I wanted to point out is that those who has residence in the country can’t be treated differently before the law. Citizenship or not, the law applies and all it’s benefits and consequences.
Are you saying it should be like that or it is? Because as of now, citizens and non-citizens are definitely treated differently.( In Sweden and in most countries) One simple example is the right to Vote. You are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. (Although some countries allow voting in local elections for non-citizens)
But I would even disagree if you meant it should be that way. Staying with the example of voting. I don’t believe anyone should be able to move to a country and just be able to vote. That would be a huge vulnerability for democracies.
On another note, the prison sentence is carried out and then the convict is deported, meaning we rehabilitated someone and then got rid of them, not benefiting from the rehabilitated person.
No argument here. That is obviously nonsensical. It should be either right away(After due process) or not at all.
Edit: Adding to the point of being treated differently under the law depending on whether you are a citizen or not. Thinking about it, it means exactly that by definition no? If we were not to differentiate between citizen and non-citizen, what would be the point of having citizenship at all?
Aw shucks, you’re not quite there yet. Let me spell it out: for someone who is not an extreme ultranationalist, contributing to public services for the common good is as natural (in fact, quite a bit more so) as contributing to those services arbitrarily restricted to citizens.
Why isn’t deportation an option? And if jails or fines are a sufficient deterrent for citizens, why not for non-citizens?
I’ll have to speak in general terms because I cant know every specific scenario.
What purpose would deportation of a citizen serve? One of the defining things about citizenship is the right to live in the place you have citizenship. Typically countries cannot leave persons stateless so deportation would be pointless, at most they pay for an air fare back, assuming there’s somewhere you can deport them to.
You’re right, fines should be levied equally if that’s the appropriate punishment. Putting someone in jail is expensive, it would seem counter to the point if the punishment for “abusing the system” was to further extract funds from the system to pay for someone’s housing and food would it not?
Tom Hanks has tried to leave the chat but is stuck living in the airport terminal.
This one is interesting, because they are proposing to revoke the citizenship and deport them.
I understood them, but I’d argue it’s utterly asinine. If you strip citizenship you’ve created a stateless person, which is mostly avoided where possible - but let’s imagine for a second this was the case. What do you do with a stateless person? They don’t have the right to reside anywhere, every country has the right to refuse entry to them. How do you deport someone when no-one will accept them? Just leave them on runways around the world?
How long before they’re put on a return flight? How long before everyone closes borders with your country because you’re leaving 1000s of criminals on runways around the world?
Presumably the same purpose (if any) the deportation of a noncitizen would serve.
So why not take away those rights of citizens, if deportation is so beneficial?
Well, no, because citizens have the right to reside, non citizens don’t. As mentioned previously citizen can just rock up to the border and re-enter.
Take away citizenship rights? That would create a stateless person. Even if we ignore the fact most countries can’t or won’t do that you’ve now got a scenario where the person you want to deport has no right to reside anywhere.
So when you show up with a plane full of ex Swedes at some airport the receiving country will go “oh those people have no right to be here, entry denied.” At which point you can either take them back to Sweden or leave them on the runway. I’d imagine it wouldn’t take long for most countries to deny entry to any transport leaving Sweden.
I don’t believe I’ve said it was beneficial at all.
Okay, but those rights can of course be taken away. There is plenty of precedent for that, the UK deported undesirables to Australia, and in the interbellum period several European governments opted to take away the rights of those citizens viewed as a threat to public order. Even if citizens aren’t deported, Sweden could opt to, e.g., concentrate them in camps on Gotland or so.
Huh, imagine that. One might almost reach the conclusion that citizenship is a problematic concept that perhaps ought not exist at all. Almost. Radical minds might even go as far as suggest that blue-eyed people shouldn’t have different rights from brown-eyed one, or that blondes shouldn’t have different rights than brunettes.
In theory, yes, in practice any government that seriously suggested it would likely not last long enough to enact the policy.
Penal colonies? No citizenship was lost that I’m aware of and they had the right to return on emancipation. It’s just jail but really really far away. I’m also not entirely sure we should be taking cues from 1700s Britain.
So prison then, only maybe worse? I’m not sure what your point here is.
Seems a bit of a jump from any conversation we’ve had here. Given it fundamentally governs the relationship between government and people it’s hard to get away from.
Comparing citizenship to hair colour is indeed radical, foolish would perhaps be a better word.
Yes, and there will come a day when governments attempting to reintroduce citizenship laws will be viewed in a similar way.
In fact, citizenship as we know it today has only been around for a little over a century. Moreover, we already have a template for how to get rid of it: within the EU, governments must grant equal rights to each EU citizen with only a few exceptions.
Then you now understand how foolish you would have sounded to the ears of Ferdinand and Isabella if you had dared to suggest Jews and Muslims should have equal rights to Gentiles.
Maybe, maybe not, none of us can predict the future.
So it’s not actually gotten rid of it any way? In fact expulsion is still permissible within the EU. I’m not sure you’re correct about citizenship as we know it only existing for around a century, but maybe our ideas about it are different. Certainly it’s changed, most things do, but it’s always been about the conference of certain rights and responsibilities on individuals.
Do I? I’d imagine a great many modern things would sound foolish to a 1400s monarch. We are, however, living in the present.
That is true. However, the overall trend across history, with some interruptions, has been one of decreasing bigotry and narrow-mindedness. With this in mind, it is plausible that insidious discrimination based on citizenship will one day not be as accepted as it is today.
It has, in fact, gotten rid of it in most ways (within the EU).
My advice to you would be to investigate to what extent you may be incorrect in this matter. For example, did you know that the UK introduced its first limitations to migration (meaning: completely open borders beforehand) in 1905 (bonus points if you can guess which ethnic group the restrictions were primarily targeted at)? Or that, prior to WW1, Europeans could freely travel across borders without border checks or identity documents, which originally were carried only by diplomats, envoys and the like?
Of course, it is true that citizenship did not come out of the blue. Other kinds of caste systems preceded and inspired it. But nationalism itself emerged only in the 19th Century - how could there have been nationalist-based restrictions before the concept even existed? To be sure, there were campaigns of genocide, pogroms and discrimination - but they were often based on informal cultural, tribal, feudal and religious ties, not formal national citizenship.
Yes, I am aware I am quite far ahead of the primitive mindset of today’s plebeians.
To be fair, prisons in Europe are about rehabilitation and not punishment. Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a non-swede?
Edit: I am talking about citizenship specifically
Because laws and governance focusing on citizenship, ethnicity etc is wildly against the sentiment of equal treatment and value of humans. It’s unlawful as well. We don’t want an apartheid system.
I see how my comment could be seen otherwise, but I am only speaking of citizenship.
Deportations of Non-Citizen criminals is legal in most countries.
(I’m guessing your apartheid comment was based on the assumption of me meaning ethnicity.)
Oh no, I didn’t assume you meant ethnicity, that was just an example and apartheid as well. It’s a better example than the US ‘equal but separate’. I just answered why Swedes are supposed to pay for non-Swedes.
What I wanted to point out is that those who has residence in the country can’t be treated differently before the law. Citizenship or not, the law applies and all it’s benefits and consequences.
On another note, the prison sentence is carried out and then the convict is deported, meaning we rehabilitated someone and then got rid of them, not benefiting from the rehabilitated person.
I’m not quite sure how to connect apartheid to the deportation of non citizens? Apartheid is different treatment based on ethnicity, not citizenship. At least per the definition on wikipedia “a system of institutionalised racial segregation”.
Are you saying it should be like that or it is? Because as of now, citizens and non-citizens are definitely treated differently.( In Sweden and in most countries) One simple example is the right to Vote. You are only allowed to vote if you are a citizen. (Although some countries allow voting in local elections for non-citizens) But I would even disagree if you meant it should be that way. Staying with the example of voting. I don’t believe anyone should be able to move to a country and just be able to vote. That would be a huge vulnerability for democracies.
No argument here. That is obviously nonsensical. It should be either right away(After due process) or not at all.
Edit: Adding to the point of being treated differently under the law depending on whether you are a citizen or not. Thinking about it, it means exactly that by definition no? If we were not to differentiate between citizen and non-citizen, what would be the point of having citizenship at all?
Why should Swedish taxpayers pay for the rehabilitation of a Swede?
Why wouldn’t they? That’s like asking why would they pay for their fellow citizens healthcare.
You’re almost starting to get it.
Yeah, because getting sick is the same as committing a crime lmao
Aw shucks, you’re not quite there yet. Let me spell it out: for someone who is not an extreme ultranationalist, contributing to public services for the common good is as natural (in fact, quite a bit more so) as contributing to those services arbitrarily restricted to citizens.